[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Kochman

What boggles my mind is that some people act as though if it isn't explicitly in the COTUS, it's not ok.
Some things are implied/understood... the basis of law, through history, is pretty much to encourage the proper behavior or discourage improper behavior... that's why laws exist.

The COTUS is not a stand alone document.
Hell, to get passed, it had to have an explicit set of amendments right off the bat!

Perhaps I should prepare a Primer on Constitutional History. (I did mention that my side job is teaching ConLaw, didn't I?)

At the top of the L&CR forum, there's Spats McGee’s Federal Constitutional Primer. Take a look, why don't you? I get the impression you have not done so. Let's go back to that Preamble you wanted to talk about. There was actually a big debate at the Constitutional Convention over how the Con should start. Obviously, the winning phrase was:

We the People of the United States, . . . .

The other phrase that was in question was "We the States," but it was decided that the power of governance was to come from The People, not from The States. Conceptually, that could have accounted for a huge change in how our laws are interpreted.

Anyway, the Articles of the Constitution are specific grants of power. They tell us exactly what powers the federal government has. It was intended to be a government of limited power, just as the federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. (State courts are considered courts of general jurisdiction.)

The Articles define exactly what powers are granted to the federal government, with certain powers reserved to the States or the People. The Bill of Rights, however, are limitations on power. Note how the Articles say "X shall have the power of," while the Amendments speak in terms of "gov't shall not encroach on Y." So powers that are "just understood," could also be called "imaginary" or "unfounded."

Now, on to this:

Originally Posted by Kochman

I don't see expanding background checks as a "giving them more power" situation, really. I see it as a power they already have, and a justifiable power at that... so, I support it, but I support it being done effectively.

As noted, you're free to use the NICS system. Head on down to an FFL and do it. That's not what you have proposed, though. You have proposed putting in place a law imposing sanctions for failure to use that system.

Whether the federal government is lawfully empowered to mandate that is an entirely separate question. However, it being "for the common good," is not enough to support that claim. Further, it's really not clear that such a law is intended for the common good, nor that it would further it.

Originally Posted by Kochman

And, again, it's not an "unjust" burden to do one... if that's your argument guys, you're going to lose in any court of law in the country. It won't even get lose to the SC.

That's a matter of opinion. You are, of course, welcome to that opinion, but it is not one I share.

Originally Posted by Kochman

So, do you want free, immediate concealed carry?
What is a reasonable burden for this?

I feel like I'm dealing with a salesman: What's your budget?
Nothing, nada, zero, zip, zilch. I don't think citizens should have to pay to exercise rights guaranteed to them by the Bill of Rights.

Originally Posted by Kochman

Specifically enumerated restrictions, rights, etc doesn't limit the gov to only those... especially since the world changes over the centuries, new inventions, etc.

"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844, 849, 117 S.Ct. 2329, 138 L.Ed.2d 874 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 35–36, 121 S.Ct. 2038, 150 L.Ed.2d 94 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding." Dist. of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 582, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2791-92, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008)